|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
I am only a recent convert to NT but looking at the points you make below,
it would seem that only your first point is valid. It would seem that the
only reason for NT users to upgrade is to "keep up" with Microsoft. Is
there anything in W2K that really enhances what we have in NT?
> It seems to me that much of the negative comments regarding Windows 2000
> come from people who haven't yet installed it on their machines. I have
been
> happily running Win2K on my machine for the last 3-4 months with great
> success. I did the upgrade from Win98, and I'm not going back. If you have
> NT, the reasons for upgrading would be:
>
> 1) Stay ahead of the Microsoft upgrade curve so you continue to get
> "upgrade" prices.
>
> 2) Multiple Monitor support.
>
> 3) It is about as easy to use as Win98
>
> If you are running Win98, There are some pretty solid reasons to upgrade
to
> Win2K:
>
> 1) Stability of NT (I have only had about 2 times where the whole system
> went down and those times were related to my video driver. I can keep it
up
> for a week or two with no problems. One program crashing doesn't bring
down
> the whole system. Even if Explorer crashes, the system stays up!)
>
> 2) Ability to run TS 4.0 in a separate memory space like NT. I did manage
to
> get TS4 installed and running according to the instructions on the Omega
web
> site.
>
> 3) Built in firewall / web server / mail server capabilities
>
> At very least, if you have a LAN that uses a Win98 machine as your
gateway,
> I would suggest upgrading that machine to Win2K. The upgrade from win98 to
> 2000 is really a no brainer just because of the stability issues.
>
> caveat:
> The OS seems to use more memory, so I would suggest 128MB for comfort with
> 96MB as a bare minimum.
>
> Patrick White
>
>
>
|